WARNING to Parents: “your children are being brain-washed” by Ontario Teachers! … Part 11

Here’s Part 11 of what one can only call “out and out Child Abuse” by our present education sector in Ontario. Left wing politically motivated Government edicts continuously being dictated by the Ontario Government vis a vis their various organizations into the education of our children is totally unacceptable!

Courtesy Bing.

Get your Damn Dirty Hands Off My Children!!!!!!!

Since when does the Ontario Power Authority have any legitimate involvement inside our school systems??????

Who gave this gaggle of governors and over-paid executives the power to influence our young minds without any oversight?

Time for our legal authorities to crack open this anti- Democratic gulag of insanity called the Government of Ontario and start laying charges!

Parents across Ontario who really care about their children’s young minds should be out in the streets looking for these miscreants who are psychologically attacking the young!

Yesterday, we covered how the Ontario Power Authority website kids.saveonenergy.ca is clearly aimed at teaching our children and grandchildren about the wonders of renewable energy without scientific evaluation or offsetting arguments.

The site has links to other websites including The David Suzuki Foundation, and trade associations CanSIA, CanWEA and lobby group OSEA. The link to the Science Teachers Association of Ontario (STAO) is the one most troubling. Visiting the STAO site and searching for “renewable energy” one of the items that pops up is “Grade 5 Conservation of Energy and Resources Activities,” also referred to as “Connecting with the Natural World Junior Division Integrated Curriculum.”

This 58-page agenda, created with funding support from the Ontario Teachers Federation, sure doesn’t look like “science” as most remember it. Webster’s defines science as “the state of knowing,” not a “doctrine” which is defined as “a statement of fundamental government policy”!

A review of the suggested curriculum clearly indicates the students are being taught the latter; its content is aimed at pushing the Grade 5 students to accept wind, solar and water power generation as the Holy Grail. Concurrently, the students are led to believe the production of power from uranium or fossil fuels is toxic. For example:

“Lesson #5: Solar, Water, and Wind Energy Inquiries

Students will deconstruct a variety of other inquiry projects linked to solar, wind or water powered energy in order to build an understanding of what others have done to test these renewable resources,and then craft their own inquiries on either solar energy, wind energy or water energy. The testing of these inquiries is best completed outside. Students will reflect on what they might wish to tell and ask their member of parliament in connection to the conclusions they make about energy consumption and alternative energy sources.” [Emphasis added, here and below.]

Other Grade 5 lessons go further and include this guiding principle:

“The notion that the use of non-renewable energy sources can cause depletion in one form of

energy and that bi-products of the conversion of certain forms of energy can be toxic to the environment should be included in the discussion.”

and

“Minds On What Can Governments Do?

Students will work with partners and then small groups to brainstorm what the government could do to help support better energy conservation, the environment, and alternative (renewable) sources of energy.”

and

“Action What are Government Platforms on Energy?

Investigate the platforms of different political parties in Ontario and Canada. What are the parties doing for our environment? What are they doing about energy conservation, production or development of clean energy? How much will this cost Ontario residents?”

At least the latter does raise the “cost” issue which, according to the Auditor General didn’t seem to be a consideration of the Liberal Party when they enacted the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA).

The Grade 5 Curriculum does go on though with other “social study” issues such as this:

“Write letters to the different local party leaders asking what their platforms on energy conservation and production are. Or ask for more details about what they are planning to do for our environment, specifically in the area of energy conservation and production. What are they doing about clean energy? What are they doing to ensure more businesses have incentives to be Green?”

When I attended school this was generally referred to as “Social Studies” not science; the following from the same curriculum supports that.

“Connections to Environmental Education

Students will investigate:

• The dependency of our social and economic systems on the conservation of energy andresources;

• The scientific and human dimensions of environmental issues related to Conservation of Energy and Resources;

• The positive and negative consequences, both intended and unintended, of different energy uses, and the need for Conservation of Energy and Resources.”

What bothers me most is the Curriculum’s conclusion as to what is defined as “science.” Is a student who points out that mankind might benefit fromthe use of fossil fuels or uranium likely to fail the assignment? This is not a challenge for the student to think “scientifically,” it is a foregone conclusion, based on the work of a cadre of environmentalists who have concluded that global warming is a fact, despite the inconclusive evidence presented by the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki!

There are many other examples in this curriculum document for Grade 5 students that fail to provide them with a balanced approach on how renewable power sources such as wind turbines, or disposal of solar panels can harm people and wildlife, etc., or any indication that they contain toxic materials.

More discouraging, the examples I’ve used only scratch the surface of what students are being told. Grade 4 material located on the STAO site carried the following message: “In other words, climate change is an overall change in weather patterns resulting from human activities such as burning fossil fuels.” and “some level of change in climate is natural and has been experienced many times over the life of our planet. The problem today is that the climate appears to be changing dramatically, very quickly and on a large scale.” In other words, the children are being told, the science is settled!

This theme is prevalent throughout the material examined. There is no evidence of any counter or balancing information to the “science.”. A search on the STAO website for “McKitrick” or “McIntyre” (who dispelled the “hockey stick” model) or “hockey stick” comes up empty. A search under Suzuki, Pembina, Greenpeace, WWF, or the IPCC however, brings up dozens of articles.

So, for Ontario teachers the “science” is settled; in the real world, it is not.

This alliance of the OPA and the Science Teachers Association of Ontario needs to be exposed as a 1984 “Big Brother” approach to teaching. It is not teaching, it is pure “indoctrination!

Parents….Now, more than ever, it is imperative that you teach your children YOUR values, in the home. Tell them that people with different ideologies are trying to influence students, through the school curriculum, and they must talk to their parents about any of that nonsense, so that the truth can be told. Sad, but true. Schools are NOT safe anymore, and it’s not just violence, that’s the issue.

Well done Kathy………..it seems that “Government Organizations” across the board have been given credibility by this Liberal Government to “educate” our children even though it’s ILLEGAL and IMMORAL!

Possibly there is an “honest teacher” out in the real world that may just want to question this without the fear of losing their Liberal-sponsored” guaranteed pension plan paid for by us tax slaves!!!!